🌱 Add k3s providers to cluster-api book

[zawachte]

What this PR does / why we need it:
Adds https://github.com/cluster-api-provider-k3s/cluster-api-k3s to the cluster-api book.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #
No existing issue ... can create one if needed.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @zawachte!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @zawachte. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[killianmuldoon]

Justa couple of questions:

• Do you also want to add this provider to clusterctl?
• Do you know what the differences are between this provider and the kubekey k3s provider? - added here @24sama who added that last year.

/area documentation
/ok-to-test

[zawachte]

• Do you also want to add this provider to clusterctl?

If that is allowed ... would love to.

• Do you know what the differences are between this provider and the kubekey k3s provider? - ✨add kubekey k3s boostrap and control plane provider #7528 @24sama who added that last year.

I don't. I agree with the concern, it would be good to understand the overlap.

[24sama]

Hi @zawachte @killianmuldoon
The kubekey k3s provider basically forks the cluster-api-k3s-provider and optimizes some logic to accommodate kubekey use.

For example:
cluster-api-k3s-provider may download k3s-install.sh script from the internet. But kubekey k3s provider uses the script that is already exists in the machine's directory because kubekey core provider will prepares these scripts, binaries, etc., on the machine.

[killianmuldoon]

The kubekey k3s provider basically forks the cluster-api-k3s-provider and optimizes some logic to accommodate kubekey use.

Would there be any way to upstream those changes and deduplicate the effort? Seems like it would be good for everyone.

Either way I think it's fine to add the k3s providers to the book. @fabriziopandini WDYT about adding this provider to clusterctl given the duplication?

[CecileRobertMichon]

+1 to adding k3s to both the book and clusterctl

Agree with @killianmuldoon that it would be best to make the changes to the k3s provider instead of maintaining a separate provider, if the kubekey changes are generic enough that they can benefit all

[24sama]

Agree with @killianmuldoon, but kubekey changes are not very generic, so we may spend some time contributing these changes upstream.

And for this PR, +1 to adding k3s provider to the book.

[killianmuldoon]

/lgtm
/approve

The duplication definitely shouldn't prevent this provider from being in the CAPI book - but it would be great if there could be some joint effort to merge the two providers.

Thanks @zawachte and @24sama for helping me understand the current state.

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 65bfadbb1bef050f3ea742e1b7e1cdc5121e3e9a

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: killianmuldoon

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• docs/OWNERS [killianmuldoon]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[zawachte]

Thanks @killianmuldoon. I will raise a follow up for the clusterctl support.